BandontheRun -- but how can the poor, uneducated, naive, gullible, be protected against these legal businesses a/k/a some evil religions. they have their marketing skills down and know a specific level of society will grab hold of their delusions of grandeur and they are easy prey. public, anti-cult groups implemented if there could be community training/awareness programs. maybe it's something the public/anti-cult groups need to implement. obviously, it's not the gov't's position/RIGHT to do this but the continuum swings way too far in religions' favor.
Watchtower Hate Speech and Intimidation Might be a Violation of US Federal Law
bandontherun --- OOOOPS --- SORRY, I meant to hit the "CANCEL" BUTTON ---- I know you are right on the law and hear the same thing all the time on this end --- OMG!
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".  The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits all incitement of racism.  On 3 May 2011, Michael O'Flaherty with the United Nations Human Rights Committee published General Comment No. 34 on the ICCPR, which among other comments expresses concern that many forms of "hate speech" do not meet the level of seriousness set out in Article 20.  Concerning the debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet, conferences concerning such sites have been sponsored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Council of Europe
The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity , as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The ECtHR does not offer an accepted definition for "hate speech" but instead offers only parameters by which prosecutors can decide if the "hate speech" is entitled to the protection of freedom of speech. 
The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance , which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims. Denmark
Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements by which a group is threatened (trues), insulted (forhånes) or degraded (nedværdiges) due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.  France
Main article: Hate speech laws in France
France prohibits by its penal code and by its press laws public and private communication which is defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity, for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act). United States
[ edit ] Constitutional Framework
The 1789 Constitution of the USA dealt only with the three heads of power; legislative, executive, and judicial, and sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the last four articles. The protection of civil rights is not found in the original Constitution but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights. The first amendment, ratified, December 15, 1791, states;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although this section is written only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch), the 14th amendment , ratified on July 9, 1868, works to extend this protection to laws of the states as well .
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. My legal background and my specialty areas inform my response. No way, not in the United States. Foreign treaties are usually not enforceable by private citizens. If they conflict with basic American norms, the treaty may be on the books for diplomatic reasons but it is not enforced.
There is no way to put into words how Freedom of Religion is totally a part of the DNA of the American ruling class. As much as I hate the WT, I would gladly defend the WT for free if this matter were raised. Lawyers take it very seriously. We were thirteen independent states with different geographical and religious traditions. Well, it was unthinkable that Roman Catholics, Moslems, or Jews would have any role in a civil democracy. In fact, being Roman Catholic was viewed as far worse than being Moslem or Catholic. This country was formed under the bedrook of Protestant dissenters with some Anglicans in NY in the mix. There was no grand notion of freedom of religion as we know it now. All wanted their particular religion to be established. The problem was no one religion commanded a majorty of states or certain geographical critera (Va., NY, and Mass. counted more than the other states. An alliance of these states was essential. The decision was to have no establishments and no restriction on religion at the federal level. The states regulated religion but never the federal government.
There could have been no United States from scratch if European quarrels existed here. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans lost their lives to religious turmoil. Even worse, it affected the economy of Europe on a huge scale. When the U.S. Constitution was written, few framers expected the United States to last more than a few years. France and Spain sent war ships visible from the American coast to claim the former British colonies. The United States owed massive debt to foreign countries not allied with England. Europeans have the concept of freedom from religion b/c their experience was different. The British and, hence, the United States have no such concept. Everything in our fabric is against freedom from religion.
I believe we should have freedom from religion, too. The constitutions of Europe that now exist were written later than the U.S. Constitutiion. America was settled by religious wackos, trying to impose their particular religion on others.
but how can the poor, uneducated, naive, gullible, be protected against these legal businesses a/k/a some evil religions. they have their marketing skills down and know a specific level of society will grab hold of their delusions of grandeur and they are easy prey. public, anti-cult groups implemented if there could be community training/awareness programs. maybe it's something the public/anti-cult groups need to implement. obviously, it's not the gov't's position/RIGHT to do this but the continuum swings way too far in religions' favor.
The only way is through education and publicity about their behavior.
Whether things are illegal or not, the population can then decide and this can help bring pressure for future legislation.
I wouldn't hold my breath though - I don't think the US political system is capable of anything right now.
The most compelling thing for most big organizations are damages ... make it more profitable to do right than do wrong and they change.
Maybe France might have been able to tax the Watchtower if they could have shown the EU the WT hate speech?
France ordered to pay millions for illegal taxation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
STRASBOURG, France—The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that the government of France must pay over 4.5 million euros ($5,600,000 US approx.) for full restitution to Jehovah’s Witnesses for violating their religious freedom through illegal taxation.
Last year, on June 30, 2011, the European Court ruled that the government of France violated the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses when it attempted to impose a retroactive 60 percent tax on all religious donations made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in France between 1993 and 1996. The Court invited the parties to resolve the matter amicably, but because the government maintained that the excessive taxation was not illegal, a friendly settlement was impossible.
In today’s decision, the government was ordered to remove “all consequences” of the tax. In addition to returning the 4,590,295 euros ($5,749,439.50 US approx.) that were confiscated at the time that the taxation was imposed, plus interest, the government is to pay the Witnesses 55,000 euros ($68,888.64 US approx.) for legal costs and expenses. It is expected that full restitution will also include removing all liens or mortgages from the facilities owned and used by the Witnesses in Louviers.